https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213504 Rule 2(h) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 was construed strictly: a person is treated as a manufacturer only where the packaged commodity bears a marking indicating that it was made, produced or manufactured by that person. Mere affixture of the importer's trade mark was held insufficient, because brand ownership is not equivalent to manufacture. On that basis, the importer could not claim manufacturer status for CVD valuation purposes, and valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not displaced by a claim for Section 4 treatment. en-us Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213504 Rule 2(h) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 was construed strictly: a person is treated as a manufacturer only where the packaged commodity bears a marking indicating that it was made, produced or manufactured by that person. Mere affixture of the importer's trade mark was held insufficient, because brand ownership is not equivalent to manufacture. On that basis, the importer could not claim manufacturer status for CVD valuation purposes, and valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not displaced by a claim for Section 4 treatment. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213504